OU Student Government Association's Superior Court ruled in favor of an appeal to clarify which SGA executive members can be impeached in a unanimous vote, marking the first time in over four years the court has heard oral argument.
The Superior Court, which is the judicial branch of SGA, ruled that Article III Section 9 of the SGA Constitution is a broad statute that permits any SGA member to be impeached by the legislature.
The hearing, held April 22 at the College of Law, centered on which executive officials SGA’s legislative branch has the power to impeach.
SGA Undergraduate Student Congress Rep. Ben Keupen, a political science junior, made the appeal and argued for a broader interpretation of Article III that would include all SGA members who hold an executive position — in the ruling, the court sided with him.
SGA General Counsel Maddie Taylor, a law student and president of the Student Bar Association, responded to the appeal and argued for an interpretation that would limit impeachment to only the roles mentioned in the constitution. In the executive office, that is the president and vice president.
“Congress shall have the sole power to bring impeachment charges against the members of the Executive, Judicial, and Programming branches,” Article III Section 9 reads.
The dispute began when Keupen requested an opinion from Taylor to reconcile conflicts between the SGA Constitution and Code Annotated about who can be impeached. Keupen disagreed with how Taylor interpreted the statute in her opinion, which is why he appealed to the Superior Court.
According to the ruling, the court recommends the Code Annotated be amended so it aligns with this interpretation of the constitution.
Prior to the hearing, Keupen told OU Daily his appeal was not related to the impeachment of former SGA President Carter Strickland in March, and is not targeted at any SGA member. The ruling does not impact Strickland’s impeachment.
The appellant
Keupen addressed the justices first, and said that Article III’s impeachment provision is deliberately broad to not limit impeachment to specific offices. The phrase “members of the executive branch” includes those both elected and appointed, because they exercise authority under the SGA Constitution, Keupen said.
“It is about ensuring no official who wields executive power is insulated from accountability,” Keupen said.
Keupen said there is no limiting language, for example “only” or “some,” on the word “members,” which means the drafters intended the check of impeachment to apply to a broad group. According to Keupen, that includes officials the president appoints to their staff who are not elected by a public vote.
Appointed officials in the president’s executive office have real authority because their decisions impact SGA operations, Keupen said. Congress votes to confirm officials each president selects, so Keupen said congress should have the power to impeach them, too.
“These appointed officials do not exist in a vacuum,” he said. “They are part of the executive branch, they function as extensions of its power.”
Chief Justice Claire Grace asked Keupen why more accountability is needed for appointed officials beyond the president, who they must answer to. Keupen said the president may be biased toward someone they appointed despite congress calling for that official’s removal.
“The president could basically prevent congress from holding that person accountable,” he said.
Justice Randi Wright asked for Keupen’s response to Chapter II-1 Section 9 of the Code Annotated which states that presidential staff members are not impeachable because they simply help the president with their duties.
Keupen said that section of the code contradicts the constitution, and the drafters would have included limiting language on impeachment if they intended it. Presidential officials have authority delegated to them by the president and are considered impeachable by the constitution, he said.
Keupen said congress has the authority to confirm executive appointments, but that ability is incomplete without the power to remove them, too.
“It's just necessary to maintain accountability. Without the impeachment the (Executive Office of the President) officers could engage in misconduct without a check on them,” Keupen said.
Justice Chase Young presented a hypothetical situation to consider the appeal. He asked if a president refuses to remove an official on their staff committing misconduct, could that president be impeached for violating the constitution?
Keupen said it would be best to impeach the official in question because impeaching the president undermines the popular vote and is too far removed from the official.
Young said the pressure of impeachment on a president already reminds them to monitor their officials and holds them accountable. In response, Keupen said Young made a fair point, but it would be congress's responsibility to decide if that was an impeachable offense for the president.
By bringing this case to the SGA Superior Court, Keupen said he is asking the court to affirm this existing power of congress to impeach all executive officials.
“Congress needs a constitutional mechanism to respond, and I believe that impeachment is that mechanism,” Keupen said.
The respondent
Taylor said she supports a restricted interpretation of Article III Section 9 because Keupen’s interpretation gives the legislature more impeachment power than the constitution allows.
According to Taylor, the justices need to consider the entirety of the constitution, and Article IV Section 4 subsection 2 of the constitution places executive staff positions under the president’s control only.
“The Student President shall have the power to establish Executive Staff Positions, to assist him or her in fulfilling his or her presidential duties, with the consent of the Legislative Branch,” Article IV Section 4 reads. “The Student President shall have the sole power to appoint personnel to fill these positions.”
Taylor said that since the president alone appoints staff positions, it’s implied that the president alone can remove people from those positions. The accountability mechanism for executive staff is removal by the president, she said.
“While the existence of their positions might be subject to the advice and consent of the legislative branch, the appointment and filling of positions is entirely under the purview solely of the president, we need to believe that removal would also be solely under presidential authority,” she said.
According to Taylor, in other sections, the constitution explicitly mentions impeachment for the president, vice president, legislative branch members, superior court members and the Campus Activities Council chair. These sections outline and limit the impeachment authority secured in Article III Section 9, she said.
Taylor said extending impeachment eligibility to all executive staff members would be an overreach of the legislative branch into the executive branch’s internal affairs. Taylor said when she issued the opinion in March, she advised against Keupen’s interpretation because it would give congress too much power.
Young said Article IV makes provisions for the succession order when the president or vice president is impeached or resigns, but simply outlining what would occur after an impeachment doesn’t limit it to those two offices only. Taylor said that section demonstrates which offices the drafters intended to be subject to impeachment.
Wright brought up how the president has the sole power to appoint staff, which implies the power to remove, and the legislature has a claim to this process too because it confirms appointments. Wright asked if the language of “sole power” when referring to the president trumps any supposed power of the legislature to impeach a staff member, and if the difference between appointing and confirming is a factor.
Taylor said the checks and balances outlined by the constitution are effective, and these issues of ambiguity are what the court will decide. According to Taylor, the absence of any clarifying language before the word “members” — like “any” or “all” — shows impeachment wasn’t intended to apply to all members.
“If the drafters wanted the legislative branch to be able to remove all SGA members, they should have said so,” Taylor said.
Young mentioned the same hypothetical he brought up to Keupen, and asked Taylor if, under her interpretation, the only option the legislature would have to hold a staff member accountable would be to impeach the president.
Taylor said that if the situation was extreme enough to impeach a staff member, there would be reason to impeach the president for being complicit. She also said impeachment is an extreme resort, and SGA needs to determine another removal action that isn’t as severe as impeachment.
Prior to the hearing, Taylor told OU Daily her loyalty is to SGA as a whole, not a particular side, and she trusts the justices to make the best decision.
“I am arguing for a more narrow interpretation that doesn't, I believe, give the legislative branch an unlimited, broad impeachment power over every member of SGA,” Taylor said. “If they disagree, that's fine by me. There's reasonable debate here; it'll be well thought out. So I think it's an important issue that deserves some clarity.”
The appellant’s response
In his concluding statement, Keupen said executive staff members are constitutionally significant because they exercise authority on behalf of the president. They oversee programs, resources and are public figures for the office of the president, he said.
Evaluating staff members for confirmation is the legislative branch’s responsibility, so the power to remove them should be guaranteed, Keupen said.
“If that power is misused, there must be a way to hold them accountable,” Keupen said.
Keupen said he agrees with Taylor that impeachment is extreme and it should be reserved for violations of public trust. If the legislature cannot impeach executive staff members, their power of impeachment is severely restricted, he said.
“It's meant to be difficult, but it must be available,” Keupen said.
Keupen said recognizing the legislature’s power to impeach staff members is a safeguard against a president refusing to remove a staff member.
Young, referencing Strickland’s recent impeachment, asked how often impeachments happen. Keupen said he only knows of two attempted impeachments, and in both cases, the presidents resigned.
SGA’s history of impeachment
On March 26, the Undergraduate Student Congress voted to impeach Strickland on five charges, making him the first president to be impeached in SGA history. According to the bill, authored by Congress Vice Chair Aaron Gilson-Bond and co-sponsored by 20 other SGA members, Strickland:
• Created a hostile workplace environment while serving as SGA president.
• Failed to act in accordance with the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act and the SGA Code Annotated while serving as SGA president.
• Went against the chief justice’s advisement in electing members to search committees while serving as SGA president.
• Neglected his duties to the legislative branches while serving as SGA president.
• Hindered the duties and responsibilities of the chief of staff.
On April 5, Strickland told OU Daily he would resign from the presidency. Before resigning, Strickland was set to face a trial before the Graduate Student Senate.
Avery Dunlap, the vice president under Strickland’s administration, was appointed president upon his resignation. She nominated Joseph Harroz III, OU President Joseph Harroz Jr.’s son, to serve as vice president, which Congress approved in a unanimous vote on April 22.
In 2015, SGA President Kunal Naik faced potential impeachment charges after he was arrested for public intoxication. Naik was elected, similarly to the Strickland-Dunlap ticket, after running an uncontested campaign. A hearing was held for Naik’s impeachment, but the charges were dismissed. Naik later resigned, saying he did not believe he could bring the dedication necessary to act as president.
This story was edited by Anusha Fathepure and Ismael Lele. Mary Ann Livingood copy edited this story.
